Cop Tasers Woman Multiply Times.....

***, I've been pulled over several times without my insurance verification card, almost never get asked for it, hell have even been in an accident and didn't have it on me and didn't get harassed about it.

To be fair, I think in the accident I had my phone on me, so I pulled up the website to show the officer. (21st century ***).

I've met shitty cops and decent ones, and sometimes they don't have a choice with what they're doing, they're legally required to dutifully enforce the law.

I've gotten pulled over a few times having left my wallet at home. I just have my driver's license number memorized. Never had a problem just giving them my number. They'll lecture me for a minute, but I just tune it out, say "ok" and drive away.

Driving without insurance in and of itself should qualify as a taserable offense.

You're a *** douchebag if you do it.

Either she's a voice over for Daffy Duck, or she is clearly intoxicated by something... maybe she's lucky she didn't get a DUI on top of it.

there's a difference between not having your proof of insurance and not having insurance, the latter I'd agree with, not the former.

I believe thats the way she talks. Looks like its the middle of the day and they are in front of a flower shop. Not saying there are no bars or restaurants around there but it just seems unlikely. Her words only began to slur a bit after she was tazed. Then again I dunno. Its all just speculation.


Im just trying to clerify: do you mean being an uninsured driver, or just happening to not have your insurance proof on you is a taserable offence?

Ive been caught without my proof on me, at the time they still cited me but they said as long as I provided proof at the courthouse before the court date I wouldnt be fined or pay court costs.

Imo, this lady deserved the ticket for no proof. If I were the cop, I would have wrote up the ticket and gave it to her without telling her that she was getting it and then left the situation. The whole "well go back to you car and look again" only irritated the situation. He had to say it at least five times.

Being an uninsured driver. In this day and age anyone with their smartphone on them should have proof available in a minute. I know not all states "officially" accept the online proof, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority accept it unless there's cause to think it's somehow invalid.

What I mean is that driving uninsured doesn't carry penalties that are nearly stiff enough given the ***you put someone through if you actually hit them and total their vehicle. Doubly so if you actually injure them as well.

This could be a bigger issue/bias of mine however, because in Pennsylvania, on top of everything else, we have ridiculous tort laws as well that actually protect the uninsured/underinsured/insurance companies' interests far more than those injured by irresponsible drivers.

The slurring was before the tasering, you've never had a nooner? I've seen 16-80+ year olds drinking all hours of the day and night, chances are she's probably sober but I just noticed it after watching the video like 10 times.

This kind of goes for just about anything. Even lawyers here in Canada will tell you to stfu and keep out of a situation to prevent it from becoming worse. You can record it in a public space to use it as evidence for or against, if requested as a witness, but otherwise, keep from placing yourself into it. Could end up with an Obstruction of Justice charge.

It probably just me, but I associate alcohol with night activity. Dinner, out with friends usually at night, watching a movie at home with the lady.


I agree. They should make it carry the same weight as a dui in terms of fines and how long that stays with your record.

Interesting story about digital proof of insurance. The gf got pulled over by a cop who had pulled someone else over. Apparently for not changing lanes or slowing down enough when she passed the cop and person pulled over. She didnt get a ticket because perhaps her spotless record and/or her complete obliviousness to that actually being an offence(hell I didnt even know that). But actually thinking about it makes sense. I think we have all seen the video of passers by hitting cop cars pulled over issuing tickets. On to the actual thing though. So ohio isnt a state that accepts digital proof currently, but she still pulled it up and the cop accepted it. Perhaps the cop didnt know that it wasnt supposed to be accepted. In this day and age, I think it should be accepted coast to coast.

Because the penalties of a DUI conviction dissuade people and change the minds of those who've been convicted, right? Literally every person I've ever met who has a DUI conviction has multiple instances and has lost their license at least once, if not several times.

Maybe we stop engaging in a pointless deterrence-by-punishment campaign and look at the causa causus.

I can see the argument that not all companies have it developed enough and it could be easily faked, but then again, the cop could also just run the number to verify it. I generally agree with you and think it will get that way soon enough.

But yeah. Blowing by any emergency responder (firefighters, police, EMS, etc.) at full speed+ on a two-lane or not moving over to the opposite lane on a 4+ lane highway is generally considered illegal.

Borderline Mental Illness that leads otherwise sane people to drink and drive, or the loss of cognitive brain function that goes hand in hand with being overserved (or general over-consumption, either from an establishment or privately) disguised and defended as "just having fun"?

Here in Canada, if you hear the sirens, and don't get the *** out of the way, or slow down to safely pass by emergency responders, it could land your *** in jail.

ok so just venting

I was hit last month by an uninsured driver who was too busy on his phone to stop for the que I was part of. Turns out that his number plate was not recognised as belonging to the car that hit me. He has since been txtin me (after exchange of details-mine legit his prolly not) taking the piss telling me to swivel.

I contacted my police force (UK) who said they cant do anything but if they see the car on the road they'll pull it over and told me to stay away from the address he gave me.

So...guess ill stop payin my insurance, road tax etc n just mug people off.

You can get in big time trouble for obstructing emergency vehicles here, too.

We could go into how our culture celebrates the imbibing of deadly toxins, but DUI is just a single example. Contrary to Louie C.K.'s opinion, deterrence-by-punishment does not seem to be a particularly strong motivator to stay within the confines of the law. Ask a criminal attorney (prosecution or defense, it doesn't matter which) how many of the defendants they've met are repeat offenders. If you ever have the misfortune of spending some time in holding, you'll probably be treated to listening to how many times the people around you have been caught doing the same stupid *** thing AND how many times they've gotten away with it.

Our current system seems to be about feeding the desire for retribution that people have. Go figure why it doesn't seem to accomplish its goals. The massive reductions in violent crime and homicide rates have demonstrably nothing to do with changes in punishment statutes, but there'll still be people calling for blood at the drop of a pin.

I think where you and I seem to butt heads the most is that I don't see why we can't have both.

Focus on the culture. Raise children better. Focus on deterrance and education.

But when people DO commit crimes, what will deter them from doing it again if not harsher punishment? Letting them off and simply saying, "please don't do that again"?

The worst part as pertains to the thread is that whatever happens to this woman subsequently due to this incident, she's just going to see herself as a victim who was harassed and unfairly treated by the police and go on thinking she didn't do a damn thing wrong.

me watching "cops" the TV show on saturday nights:

"it's a weapon! tase em'!"

"he's running! tase em'!"

"he's resisting! tase em'!"

"looked at you cross eyed! tase em'!"

at least finally someone got tased.

(didn't read the OP)

Police officer deaths
Over 100 deaths in the last 10 years with officers being struck by vehicles... they take that ***serious!

I have to agree. Canada has it's own ways of dealing with ***like this, which in most cases, is to show the offending party the results of their actions - not to use fear as a deterrent, but the results themselves that can be (and sometimes are) applied to them, their families, and their friends. Then a process of "healing" happens, where, while we do have repeat offenders, tends to be the best kind of deterrent. But we also use preventative measures as well - even first offenders, be it court ordered or voluntary - will speak to the public in support groups, schools, etc., which since this plan has been adopted and utilized, has ultimately had a positive impact.

As for the op... I understand exercising your rights and such but if you are in clear violation of the law... I mean come on...

Rehabilitation.

Have you ever raised dogs? I know you haven't raised children, but the principle is the same and, yes, it even applies to adults. If you hit them when they do something wrong, they grow resentful and spiteful. They will do the same thing again or worse, but they may try to cover it up (or they may not if they're particularly angry). All that pain does is reinforce the bad behavior in spite of that being the opposite intended effect.

If you want someone to stop engaging in a bad behavior, you have to take the time to figure out why they're doing it and what needs to change to remove the impetus. Simple example is someone with frequent minor assault charges (i.e., someone who gets in scuffles and fistfights on a regular basis). They almost always come from an abusive home and they almost never have had someone sit down, listen to their story, and say, "That shouldn't have happened to you," much less, "And we can't let the cycle continue."

I know it's terrifyingly popular to make fun of rehabilitation efforts by saying that people want to be forgiven for murder because they had a bad childhood, but on top of that being inaccurate and extreme, it's not exactly wrong. There's nothing healthy or rational about drinking to intoxication every day of the week, but if I suggest we look into the reasons why someone does that and help them move past it, suddenly the scoff level goes off the meter. Yet throwing people in jail, taking their license, fining them thousands of dollars... those accomplish nothing.

I once read a story about a guy who spent 10 years getting picked up for DUI and never changed his pattern, but once he was convicted of a sex crime and forced through therapy, he both quit drinking and reformed whatever it was he did in terms of the sex crime. He'd been forced into AA multiple times and, since he had no motivation to do the process, he never did. Going into the much harsher and more regimented therapy for an unrelated crime, though, proved to be the difference.

I won't say it would work every time nor that everyone can be reformed, but it seems like there are some programs out there which are both unpleasant and rehabilitative enough to achieve the desired result.

I have a coworker whose husband was a tow truck driver and died the same way.

People drive like *** ***.

I still don't see why it can't be both. Especially if they cause someone financial or bodily injury. Go ahead and have them go through rehab. They probably need it. It can help. Especially with DUI/substance abuse. Maybe even sexual abuse, though I have far less sympathy for sexual predators than I do for substance abuse or criminals involved in crimes that don't involve bodily/psychological harm.

But you can't just let people do terrible things and not punish them. I am actually quite clear on training dogs and the analogy works, but only to a point, because dogs are like children. Literally. The smartest of them works on the level of 3-year-old human, last estimate I read. And you wouldn't put a toddler to death if they inadvertantly hurt someone.

At the same time, if a dog were to maul a child who was tormenting it, very few people would be against putting that dog down.

So I don't know where to go with this analogy in the end.

*sigh*

All we've accomplished is reminding me that people are *** and I want a dog.

Issue 1. She did not have a current insurance card and gave the officer a non matching name. Claimed name she goes by not the name on her id. As an officer this is a simple fix to go to on board pc, and run through and check for priors alerts and outstanding warrants..the officer already has probable cause to investigate further. And has a right to be there to investigate the accident.

Issue 2 safety for public and officer safety. She is legally detained for the accident report. She was told to go wait in her vehicle. She ignored the order and approached the officer. And she was escalated she was given verbal warnings to comply she did not comply and through escalation of force non lethal was deployed at officers discretion to gain control. You do not know the health or strength of the officer or how comfortable the officer could be going hands on with your sidearm at risk. Tazer is a good tool. She was the primary aggressor did not follow officer commands. And made verbal threats to the officer. She at that moment committed a crime of assault

Now if you look at her being controlled no excessive force being used she was still being aggressive but still not safe search for weapons complete picked up and placed in car.

Her next complaint denied medication at a certain time just because your script says take meds qid or with meals is not a denial of meds unless the script says a direct time its just suggested time.

Everything i saw imo justified and within color of the law.

Lots of things to comment on. Firstly, we are 25 and a lot of stuff goes over our heads sometimes. Like I siad, when I thought about it, it actually makes sense to do so. And henceforth we have done so. We just didnt know it was an offence. The most important thing is that we live and learn.

Its kind of like 2 years ago's tax season. For my adult career, ive only ever filed federal and state taxes. Two years ago I got a letter from my city saying that I and a lot of people in the city are being audited for not filing. I ended up paying 375 or something silly like that. Fifty for every year I didnt file and the difference that I owed the city. I live in vs the city I worked in at the time for 2 years(2.25% vs 2%). I wasnt upset that I was audited, I was more bummed out that no one ever told me to file city. I know people who still dont file city after I warn them.

As for the ambulance and other safety vehicles, from seeing that more often then seeing someone pulled over it is/was common knowledge that you get out of their way(stop or furthest right lane).

Specifically in response to Onorgul: I was under the impression that rehab was part of the penalties of a dui. I wasnt specifically talking about financial penalties but the ones that follow you for jobs and public records. I was a certified mechanic(i let the certs lapse cause im not working with cars at this point). Points affect my ability to possibly get a job as do dui's. I feel as though being uninsured and being caught should do the same thing.

Drinking and driving is a selfish choice, imo. It shows that you have no concern for the people you may come into contact with while you are operating a car intoxicated. I feel the same way about driving uninsured, its very selfish.

Because they operate at cross-purposes. I just said that.

You'd really do a lot better for your own health to just say, "I am a sadistic, revenge-loving *** who wants everyone I dislike to suffer and die painfully and soon." Because that's clearly the part of your brain that keeps getting in the way. You keep going 'round and 'round trying not to acknowledge the bloodlust in your voice.

I don't imagine it's because that'd make you no better than the people you want to see beaten, hung, drawn, quartered, and burned.

Think I'm being harsh? Literally every time the question of crime and punishment comes up, you start advocating incredibly harsh punishments that have consistently failed to reduce the incidence rate of crime. And I point this out and you concede my point and then say, "Well, can't we just shoot them in the head, anyways?"

I get it, someone caused harm and shouldn't be let off scot-free. But that doesn't happen. These days, people convicted of DUI consider long hours of community service to be a nuisance, consider fines to be a nuisance, and practically look at jailtime as a badge of honor. And then they go and do it again because nothing is learned from those punishments!

Spend 2 hours every Tuesday evening for the next 50 weeks in a therapy group that reports to and is strictly scrutinized by probation AND demonstrate understanding and remorse before you're let back out OR you'll do a nickle upstate: now you've finally got carrot-and-stick, which is the best way to get someone motivated. And it involves getting at the real problem (people don't get plastered because they're healthy) instead of pretending that completely unmonitored and unenforced AA will have any meaningful impact.

It might be different in other states, but where I live, you're told to attend AA. I could list the many, many ways that people get around that or go into the fact that even voluntary attendees of AA have roughly a 5% success rate. The court doesn't order the kind of rehab that needs to take place for the overwhelming majority of alcohol-related incidents. Intoxication with an illicit substance might get that kind of sentence, I really don't know, but I'd imagine someone high on cocaine is looking at further charges, anyhow.

As for conflating an uninsured driver with a drunk driver... I can't really do that. Someone is generally uninsured because they can't afford it, but that in no way means they're dangerous or negligent driver. Getting wasted and then driving is, as you pointed out, a deliberate act of selfish disregard for human life (including your own). The law treats them differently because they are necessarily different.

Bloodlust is hardly the word I'd use, nor sadistic. I don't enjoy seeing people punished.

I find myself at a loss for a way to describe it however. I don't want to see people drawn and quartered, burned, hung, or beaten.

When it comes to the death penalty or extreme isolation imprisonment, I'm only talking about that for hardcore crimes. Not moving violations.

I don't like seeing people punished. I'd prefer people not be criminal at all. I know everyone says "Oh, but that's not realistic so you're a fool". Well, maybe.

Maybe that's my hangup, though. We have a society. We have laws of society. I don't get why people can't. just. ***. follow them.


I concede your points because I see the real-world application of them. Which I guess is what we have to settle for. But it befuddles me that any reasonable person -- which I do generally consider you -- would prefer leniency on those who subvert, pervert, and dismiss the rights of people who are just trying to go on living their lives.


No, it specfically means that they're negligent. Accidents are called accidents for a reason. They may not specifically be driving like an ***, but if they're driving in an unfamiliar area and don't see and run a stop sign in an odd place and plow into someone, and they're not insured, they are -- in fact -- neglecting their responsibilities as a motorist.

In terms of responsibility I feel like if you can purchase/lease or can gas up a car thats given to you, paying for insurance should be part of that ownership.

Obviously it would need to be put into practice, but you seem pretty adamant about this idea. Do you think that other groups of people who commit crimes could benefit from this sort of rehabilitation? Lets say a white collar criminal that would face 8-10 years jail time.